^-J^E^^^-r^ <3^.^l^ o^r^^W- 



F8 U5 



Copy 1 THE 

LETTERS OF JUNIUS. 



All Ess(fy upon the Authorship of 

tliese Reniarhahle C oui positions 

n^ith Original Letters from 

Jurists, Statesmen and Scholars! 



SHOWING A CONCURRENT CONVICTION 
THAT JUNIUS WAS 

SIR PHILIP FRANCIS ! 

BY: 

K F. UNDER^VOOD! 



1881: 
Seymour Times Print. 



~> 



9900 







THE LETTERS OF JUNIUS. 



SIR PHILIP FRANCIS THE AUTHOR— THE 

''PAINE GUESS'' WITHOUT 

FOUNDATION. 

The celebrated pliillipics known collectively as the 
Leiiers of Junius, published in the Public Adver- 
tiser, a leading London journal, over different signa- 
tures, such as Mnemon, Atticus, Lucius, Brutus, 
Junius and Philo Junius (and sometimes with no 
nom de plume affixed), extend over a period of nearly 
five years — from Aj^ril, 1767, to the middle of 1772. 
The signature Junius was not adopted till 1769. 

For polish and pungency these letters have never 
been surpassed, if equalled; and in them men and 
measures were assailed with a freedom, boldness and 
bitterness, with a disregard of rank and station, age 
and sex, that excited the curiosity of all readers, and 
aroused the indignation of the first statesmen of 
England. During their publication the resources of 
the different branches of the government were ex- 
hausted to discover the author of these remarkable 
compositions; and since that time, books, pamphlets 
and articles, written to fix their authorship, have 
been issued in such numbers that were they all col- 
lected they would form, at least, a small-sized li- 
brary. 

These famous letters have been ascribed to more 
than forty different persons; but notwithstanding all 
the circumstances under which they were written, the 
high character and position of tl^e persons assailed, 
the personalities indulged in, and the laborious re- 
searches made from the time the letters appeared 



2 

down to the present, to discover the writer, his fa- 
mous declaration and prediction contained in the 
dedication of his collected letters to the English na- 
tion — "I am the sole depository of my own secret, 
and it shall perish with me " — have only thus far 
been verified by the lapse of time. Junius remains 
the " shadow of a name " — unknoAvn. 

Of all the persons v/hom different writers have at- 
tempted to prove the author of these letters, there is 
only one who, it has not been abundantly shown, 
could not have been identical with Junius. That one 
is Sir Philip Francis. For nearly half a century 
the acutest minds of England have inclined strongly 
to the opinion that the Franciscan theory is the cor- 
rect one. A curiously combined chain of affirmative 
testimony seems to lead directly to Francis, while 
the absence of negative testimony arising out of the 
character, oi^inions, habits and connections of Francis 
to break any link in this long chain of affirmative 
evidence, goes to strengthen the latter. 

Lord Brougham in an article published in 1817, 
gives extracts from a speech delivered by Francis in 
1797, and reraprks: "We humbly conceive that the 
most careless reader must be struck, not only with 
the general alnlity and eloquence of these passages, 
but with their extraordinary coincidence with* the let- 
ters of Junius in all their most remarkable character- 
istics — the boldness and even fierceness of the tone — 
the studied force and energy of the diction — the 
pointed and epigrammatic cast of the style— the con- 
cise and frequent metaphors — the mixture of the 
language of business and affairs, with a certain 
scholastic elegance and elaborate sarcasm." The fol- 
lowing epitome of Brougham's reasoning is given 
from the preface to Woodf all's edition of Junius: 

"1. He finds that the dates of the Juiiian letters 
exactly tally with Francis's residence in this country 
and his going abroad. 2. Francis was a clerk in 
the War office, and Junius exhibits an intimate ac- 
quaintance with the business and persons of that de- 
partment. 3, Francis was appointed a clerk in the 



3 

Foreign office in 1766. Junius shows an uncommon 
acquaintance with, and interest in the transactions of 
the Foreign department as well as of the War office; 
and the period to which his knowledge refers, pre- 
cedes the death of Lord Egremont in 1763. 4. The 
manner in which Junius always treated Lord 
Chatham coincides exactly with the expressions of 
Sir Philip in his speeches and writings. 5. The high 
admiration of Lord Chatham which Junius shows 
is not reconcilable with his kindness towards his an- 
tagonist, Lord Holland. But the history of Sir 
Philip explains this: His father was Lord Holland's 
domestic chaplain. Sir Philip himself received from 
Lord Holland his first place in the Foreign office, 
and sentiments of gratitude would overcome the 
natural inducement which Junius had to join in the 
attacks upon Lord Holland. 6. From his private 
correspondence it is plain that Junius bore a great 
personal good will towards Woodfall. Woodfall was 
educated at St. Paul's school, where Francis is known 
to have been bred; and Woodf all's son would after- 
wards speak of the acquaintance formed at that 
school between his father and Francis as having given 
rise to a mutual kindness during their after lives. 
7. There is reason to believe that Junius was known 
to Garrick; Sir Francis, in the preface to 'England' 
says that he enjoyed the friendship and esteem of 
Garrick. 8. It is unquestionable that Junius used to 
attend the debates in Parliament, and take notes of 
the more important speeches; Francis attended the 
debates during the same period. 9. There are many 
favorite expressions in their printed works which are 
common to each ; such as * Of his side,' * So far 
forth,' 'Pray never mind,' 'Pray tell me,' &c. 10. 
Lord Brougham then tells the following story: Mr. 
Jackson, of Ipswich, was in Woodf all's employment 
at the period of the letters; and he states that he 
once saw a tall gentleman, dressed in a light coat, 
with bag and sword, throw into the office door open- 
ing in Fry Lane a letter of Junius's, which he picked 
up and immediately followed the bearer of it into 



4 

St. Paul's church yard, where he got into a hackney- 
coach and drove off. Taylor in his ' Identity of Ju- 
nius,' states that the figure and appearance of Sir 
Philip Francis answer to this description as far as it 
goes. 11. There are various peculiarities of spell- 
ing which occur uniformly in both writers. Lastly, 
though the letters are known to be written in a 
feigned hand, the general characters agree v/ell with 
that of Francis." 

These reasons taken together, make out a strong 
case in favor of the authorship of Francis, and al- 
though published while Francis was yet alive, were 
never contradicted by him. 

Wraxall represents Francis as taciturn and " burst- 
ing with bile;" but expresses admiration for his ge- 
nius. "Nature," he says, "had conferred on him 
talents such as are rarely dispensed to any individu- 
al — a vast range of- icleas, a retentive memory, a 
classic mind, considerable command of language, en- 
ergy of thought and expression." 

Rogers, the poet, says in his Table Talk: " My own 
impression is that the letters ol Junius wore written 
by Sir Philip Francis. In a speech which I once 
heard him deliver at the Mansion House concerning 
the partition of Poland, I had a striking proof that 
Francis possessed no ordinary powers of eloquence." 

Referring to Sir Philip Francis, Lord Brough- 
ham says (in his Slaiesmen of Times, George the 
Third): "His taste v/as thus formed on the best 
models of all the ages, and it was pure to rigorous 
severity. His own style of writing was, excelling in 
clearness, abounding in happy idiomatic terms, not 
over loaded with either words or figures, but not 
rejecting either beautiful phrases or appropriate 
ornament. It was somewhat sententioiis and even 
abrupt, like his manner it did not flow very smoothly, 
much less fall impetuously; but in force and effect 
it was by no means wanting, and though somev/hat 
more antithetical and thus wearing the appearance of 
more labor than strict taste might justifiy, it had the 
essential quality of being so pellucid as to leave no 



cloud whatever over the meaning, and seemed so im- 
pregnated with the writer's mind as to wear the 
appearance of being perfectly natural, notwithstand- 
ing the artificial texture of the composition. In diction 
it was exceedingly pure, nor could the writer suffer, 
though in conversation, any of the mootish phrases 
or even pronunciations which the ignorance or the 
carelessness of society is perpetually contributing, 
with the usages of parliament to vitiate our saxon 
dalect. '-' ''' * ^' - His critical 

severity, even to the tone and language of conversa- 
tion was carried to what sometimes appeared an 
excess." 

The foUov/ing extract from a letter written by Sir 
Philip Francis to the Duchess of Devonshire, to- 
gether with extracts from the lady's letters, are given 
in Percy Fitzgerald's Life of George the Fourfh, 
(part 1, chai)t. 32): " Because," says the author, " they 
iljdstrate the almost elegant style of communication 
between an accomplished man and woman of the 
time." The identity of the style of this letter with 
that of Junius must be admitted by every one familiar 
with the celebrated "Letters." Francis writes in 
reply to a letter: 

" Some cruel words in the letter I received from 
you yesterday have filled me with deep and serious 
anxiety, and the more as I cannot, if I would, conjec- 
ture what grief they relate to, or what is the nature 
or extent of it. Do not believe it possible that your 
heart can be ' torn in pieces,' and that mine can be 
unwounded. On a subject so described, it would be 
equally unbecoming and useless in me to ask a ques- 
tion, or to solicit an explanation. Sorrow is certainly 
softened by participation. To share the burden is to 
lighten it; but that case supposes a long and mutual 
intimacy, and cannot be extended to many. From 
woman to woman, it is most dangerous. In a few 
minutes I have hated at first sight. In others, as you 
perhaps may think possible enough, I have loved 
without waiting for a second. But mere love should 
beware of confessing anything to its object, except its 



6 

own passion. The party that desires more intends to 
command. With all these wise considerations before 
you, it is for yourself to judge whether any service 
or council or consolation of mine can be of any use 
to you. If not, you ought not to tell me; for though 
I know you would be safe, you do not. Religion 
comes late, and serves only to console. Can you 
endure and will you forgive these moral airs in a man 
who never pretended to be anything, and to be a 
moralist least of all? With all possible veracity, I 
do confess to you that I am very wise for everybody 
but myself. Wisdom has been beaten into me by ex- 
perience, of which no man, I do believe, has had 
more than I have had, to my cost, crowded into the 
same number of years. Yet born and bred as I was 
in adversity, and traversed by disappointment in every 
pursuit of my life; I never should have been un- 
happy if it had been possible for me never to be 
imprudent. My mind is come at last to maturity, of 
which you, if you please, and if you want it, may at 
all times have the benefit. Should I fail in judg- 
ment, you will find me safe, faithful and discreet. 
You talk of the shortness of our acquaintance; why, 
then, if all this be not mere moonshine, and if we are 
really and seriously to be friends, we have no time to 
lose. The fact, however, is that I have known you 
for many years, and long before the date of our ac- 
quaintance. It is true I saw you at a great distance, 
and as a bird of passage. The planet passed by, and 
knew nothing of the poor astronomer who watched 
her motions and waited for the transit. Hereafter, I 
hope you will not insist on my seeing you through a 
telescope. Honestly and honorably I believe I meant 
nothing but that, while you were writing to me, you 
thought of nobody but C. F. Not at all, however in 
the sense of being in love with him. That idea never 
entered into my thoughts. On that subject, I begin 
to be what fine ladies call nettled, by your eternally 
answering me at cross purposes, or telling me, as you 
do in efiect, that six and four do not make nineteen, 
and as if I had maintained the contrary. My allega- 



7 
tion is that I am forsaken, etc. Your defence is that 
he is a man of transcendent abilities, and externally 
amiable in private life. I admire the discovery, but 
it gives me no sort of consolation. ^ ^^ I feel like 
gummed velvet, and wish I could hate you for half 
an hour, that I might cut you into a thousand little 
stars, and live under the canopy. On Monday I wrote 
till I could not see, without saying half what I in- 
tended. You say I must have spoilt you. Will you 
be so good as to tell me what sort of being you were 
before you were spoiled? As for me, it is a clear 
case that I must be bewitched, or I never would trust 
a declared enemy with such a letter as the enclosed. 
^ * You say ' I knew your opinion long ago and 
wish to bring you to own it, that I might attack it.' 
Most dear insidious person! I had no disposition to 
inveigh against Mr. Fox's conduct, nor should I have 
said anything about it, if you had not provoked me 
on one side and ensnared me on the other. Will you 
now bo honorable, and can you be just? Did such a 
letter deserve no answer?" 

Sir James Mackintosh had so little doubt as to 
Francis's authorship that he v/roto in his journal in 
1817 thus: "Dec. 8. Dined with Junius. His wife 
is a woman of informed mind and agreeable person. 
The vigorous hatreds which seem to keep Francis 
alive are very amusing." In the " Lives of the Chan- 
cellors," by Lord Campbell, is a letter from the 
widow of Sir Philip Francis maintaining that he 
wrote the Letters. His first present to her after their 
marriage was a copy of Junius, and another copy 
sealed up and intrusted to her was a posthumous 
present to his son. Hallam, the historian, was strong- 
ly of the opinion that Junius was Francis. Lord 
Macauley alluding to the evidence that Francis wrote 
the Letters of Junius, observes : " The external evi- 
dence is, we think, such as would support a verdict in 
a civil— nay in a criminal proceeding. The hand- 
writing of Junius is the very peculiar handwriting of 
Francis, slightly disguised. As to the position, pur- 
suits snd connections of Junius, the following are 



8 

the most important facts, which can be considered 
clearly proved: First, that he was acquainted with 
the technical forms of the Secretary of State's office; 
secondly, that he was intimately acquainted with the 
business of the War Office; thirdly, that he, during 
the year 1770, attended debates in the House of 
Lords and took notes of speeches, particularly of the 
speeches of Lord Chatham; fourthly, that he bitter- 
ly resented the appointment of Mr. Chamier to the 
place of Deputy Secretary of War; fifthly, that he 
was bound by some strong tie to the first Lord Hol- 
land. * ^ Now here are five marks which ought 
to be found in Junius. They are all five found in 
Francis. We do not believe that more than two of 
them can be found in any other person whatever. If 
this argument does not settle the question, there is 
an end of all reasoning on circumstantial evidence." 

It may be added here that in January, 1772, the 
King, so it is stated, remarked confidentially to a 
friend, "Junius is known and will write no more." 
Junius's last letter was dated January 21, 1772. Not 
long afterwards Sir Philip Francis was appointed, as 
Dr. Goodrich says, " to one of the highest stations of 
profit and trust in India, at a distance of fifteen 
thousand miles from the seat of English politics." 

About a dozen years ago the posthumous works of 
Mr. Parker, edited and completed by Mr. Merivalo, 
while confirming all the old testimony adduced by 
Brougham, Macauley and others, brought out some 
new circumstances which deepened the conviction 
among men of letters that Francis was Junius. In 
1871 was published, " The Handivrifing of Junius 
Professionally Investigated,'' by Mr. Charles Chabot, 
edited by Hon. E. Twistleton. This work, which a 
writer in the Quarierly Review declares has settled 
once for all the long disputed controversy, seems to 
have nearly or quite satisfied all who have been suf- 
ficiently interested in the subject to give it a careful 
examination that the Franciscan theory is impreg- 
nable. 

George Otto Trevelyan in his recently published 



9 
work, "T/ie Early History of Charles James Fox,'* 
seems to entertain no doubt whatever as to the au- 
thorship of the letters. Referring to the work of 
Joseph Parker he says : " That memoir has virtually 
set at rest the controversy " that once iDromised to be 
eternal again. "It was Philip Francis, as we now 
know, who had taken down from memory and given 
to the world the speech of the twenty-second of No- 
vember; and in such hands it is needless to say Cha- 
tham's invective had lost nothing of its terrors. And 
now on the 7th of December there appeared in Mr. 
Woodfall's journal a passage from a speech of the 
Duke of Grafton, which bore only too evident signs 
" of having been reported with literal fidelity, accom- 
panied with the unsparing comments of a critic who 
signed himself Domitian, and who was as much Ju- 
nius as Junius was Sir Philip Francis." 

"His enormous influence over the minds of his 
countrymen of which he was silently but most justi- 
fiably proud, would vanish in ' a day (if he we re dis- 
covered). There would be an end of his hopes of a 
career in the House of Commons — hopes very pre- 
cious to him, and as the event showed, not presump- 
tuous. His post in the department where he was 
doing such well-paid work, would be vacant as soon 
is the secretary at war could get hold of a scrap of 
paper on which to write his dismissal. But the loss 
of the means of living, would be a small matter to 
one at whose throat a score of swords would at once 
be pointed; and when he had run the gauntlet of 
Bedford's friends and Lowthier's trenchermen, and 
the brother sportsmen of Grafton, and the half -pay 
colonels who had been Granby's aides-de-camp, 
of the guardsmen whose military privileges he had as- 
sailed with the effective accuracy of official knowledge, 
and the courtiers whose master he had lectured with 
irreverance, which to them was nothing short of 
sacrilege, he had still before him the prospect for 
years to come, of spending in the King's Bench Pris- 
on every spare moment that he was not in the custo- 
dy of the sergeant--dt-arms. Philip Francis, as nine 



10 

years later all Calcutta, and soon all London knew, 
was not a whit less brave than he was quarrelsome; 
but Junius consistently refused to go into the field 
with an antagonist who staked nothing but the chance 
of a wound against the certainty of his own utter 
ruin." 

In an anonymous work entitled "Junius Unmask- 
ec/," published in 1872, an attempt is made to prove 
that the Letters of Junius were written by Thomas 
Paine. In this work anologes are imagined where 
none exist, and the reasoning throughout is weak and 
inconclusive. It has made no impression whatever 
upon those who are familiar with the Junius question. 
The theory which connects Paine with Junius' Letters 
has found another, a scarcely more convincing advo- 
cate in Prof. Denslow of Chicago who imagines Paine 
the ''ready writer" and rhetor ican, inspired by Lord 
George Sackville and others. He seems to have but 
little confidence however in this theory, and admits 
that " we cannot think any complete argument can be 
constructed in behalf of Paine, however great the 
resemblance may be between his style and that of 
Junius, until it shall be shown that Paine lived in 
close communication with Chatham, Francis, Home 
Tooke, Wilkes, Lord Shelburne, Dr. Wilmot, Burke 
or Lord George Sackville or with some of them." 

There is no evidence whatever that Paine either 
wrote, or had any connection with Junius' Letters. 
Paine declares unequivocally *' the cause of America 
made me an author," and there is no evidence that he 
wrote before he came to America (in 1774) anything 
except a little pamphlet on the abuses of the Excise 
department in which he was employed. Paine did 
not possess and was not in a situation to obtain the 
knowledge of persons and transactions necessary to 
enable him to write those letters. Junius was not 
always as thoroughly and as minutely informed in 
regard to individuals as he professed to bo, per- 
haps, — although he was remarkable even in this 
respect, — yet he possessed information of a certain 
kind which showed that he was in an official position 



11 

or moved within the circle of the court; ''for " as the 
writer of the "Preliminary Essay" in Woodfall, 
Junius says: "The feature that peculiarly character- 
ized him, at the time of his writing, and that cannot 
even now be contemplated without surprise, was the 
facility with which he became acquainted with every 
ministerial manouvre, whether public or private, from 
almost the very instant of its conception." He was 
not only familiar with what was done, but with the 
intrigues and intentions of the ministry which were 
defeated by unforeseen circumstances, as there is 
abundant evidence to prove. 

In a letter to Woodfall in 1769, Junius speaks of 
his " rank and fortune." Paine had neither the one 
nor the other, and he was not a man to make any 
claims of that kind. 

To Woodfall, who urged him to share the profits of 
the publication of his letters (or to point out some 
public charity to which an egual sum might be pre- 
sented) Junius wrote: "As for myself be assured that 
I am far above all pecuniary views, and no other per- 
son has, I think, any claim to share with you. Make 
the most of it, therefore, and let all your views be 
directed to a solid, however moderate independence, 
without which no man can be happy or even honest." 
Thomas Paine never wrote the last sentence in the 
above extract. A poor man like Paine might have 
declined to receive the profits of his works in 
England as he did in America when he wrote in de- 
fence of the American Revolution; but such a man 
would not have said " let all your views of life be di- 
rected to a solid, however moderate independence, 
without which no man can be happy or even honest." 
It shows the sphere of life in which the writer moved. 
It shows that while he was a generous man, he was in 
affluent or easy circumstances. In another letter to 
Woodfall he wrote: "For the matter of assistance, 
be assured that if a question should arise upon any 
writings of mine, you shall not want it; in point of 
money be assured you shall never suffer." Paine, 
who in England was a poor stay-maker, tobacconist 



12 

and exciseman, was in no condition to give assurances 
like these. 

Junius was a believer in a monarchical form of 
government. Paine hated monarchy. Junius says: 
"I can more readily admire the liberal spirit and integ- 
rity than the sound judgment of any man who prefers 
a republican form of government in this or any other 
empire of equal extent, to a monarchy 'so qualified 
as ours. I am convinced that neither is it in theory 
the wisest system of government nor practicable in 
this country. Yet though I hope the English Con- 
stitution will forever preserve its original monarchical 
form, I would have the manners of the people purely 
and' strictly republican." — Letter 59. ' 

Now Paine had no respect for the constitution of 
the government of England, and he wrote " there is 
something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition 
of monarchy." 

Junius was an advocate of the Stamp Act, applaud- 
ed Grenville, and was at one time very severe on the 
friends of the American colonies. 

*| It would be to no purpose," he wrote December 
1767, " at present to renew a discussion of the merits 
of the Stamp Act, though I am convinced that even 
the people who were most clamorous against it, either 
never understood, or wilfully misrepresented every 
part of it. But it is truly astonishing that a great 
number of people should have so little foreseen the 
inevitable consequences of repealing it. ^ '^ There 
was indeed one man (Grenville) who wisely foresaw 
every circumstance which has since happened, and 
who, with a patriot's spirit, opposed himself to the 
torrent. He told us, that if we thought the loss of 
outstanding debts and of our American trade, a mis- 
chief of the first magnitude, such an injudicious 
compliance with the terms dictated by the colonies, 
was the way to make it sure and unavoidable." Ho 
writes, July, 1768: " We find ourselves at last reduced 
to the dreadful alternative of either making war up- 
on our colonies, or of suffering them to erect them- 
selves into independent States. It is not that I now 



13 

hesitate upon the choice we are to make. Everything 
must be hazarded." 

" If the pretensions of the colonies had not been 
abetted by something worse than a faction here the 
Stamp Act would have executed itself." 

Again : " But unfortunately for us, some vain per- 
nicious ideas of independence and separate domin- 
fon, thrown out and fomented by designing seditious 
spirits in that country, and encouraged and confirmed 
here by the treachery of some and the folly of others, 
have cut off all those just hopes, those well formed 
expectations." He comments severely on the "j)u- 
sillanimous administration" that was "abetting and 
supporting the colonies against the mother country," 
and concludes thus: "I shall only add that it is the 
common cause of this nation; and that a vigorous 
and steady exertion of the authority of Great Britain 
would soon awo a tumultuous people, who have grown 
insolent by our injudicious forbearance, and tram- 
pled upon us because we submitted to them." 

Miscellaneous Letters No. 10, 1767. 

At a later date, when circumstances had somewhat 
changed, Junius was opposed to taxing the colonies, 
but insisted on the r'ujM. It was he nffirmed "a spec- 
ulative right never to be exerted nor never to be re- 
nounced." 

This is not the language of Thomas Paine, author 
of " Camm.on Sense " and " Eights of Man." 

The English author of the essay in Woodfall's 
Junius, says that " neither his enmity nor his patriot- 
ism hurried him into any of those political extrava- 
gances which have peculiarly marked the character 
of the present age ; a limited monarchy, like our own, 
he openly preferred to a republic; "^ " and anterior 
to the American contest, was as thoroughly convinced 
as Mr. George Grenville himself of the suprernacy 
of the legislature of this country over the American 
colonies." 

The style of Junius is more studied and finished 
than that of Paine. There are passages in the 
writings of Paine which will not suffer by a compari- 



14 

son wkh the best passages in Junius; but the writings 
of Paine, as a whole, lack the studied elegance, the 
rhetorical polish, the classical correctness, which 
characterize the philippics of Junius. A certain re- 
semblance in the style of the two writers undoubt- 
edly exits, which, indeed, is mentioned by Lord 
Brougham; but there is a dissimilarity not less strik- 
ing. Each has numerous peculiarities of expression 
that the other lacks. Paine could no more have writ- 
ten the Letters of Junius, than Sir Philip Francis 
could have written Common .Sense or the Age of 
Reason. Both were men of genius, and the writings 
of both are stamped by the individuality of their 
authors. 

Had Paine written the Letters of Junius, he would 
have had no reason to conceal the fact during the 
last thirty years of his life. He would have had ev- 
ery reason for making it known. He felt a just 
pride in his writings, which some have without rea- 
son, I think, characterized as vanity; and this would 
have led him to disclose the secret. 

*' I can not," says Col. Robert G. Ingersoll in his 
Introduction to Denslow's Modern Thinkers, "be- 
lieve thcit he (Paine) wrote the letters of "Junius," 
although the two critiques combined in this volume 
entitled " Paine " and "Junius," make by far the best 
argument on the subject I have read. First, Paine 
could have had no personal hatred against the men 
so bitterly assailed by Junius. Second, He knew at 
that time, but little of English politicians, and cer- 
tainly had never associated with men occupying the 
highest positions, and could not have been personally 
acquainted with the leading statesmen of England. 
Third, He was not an unjust man. He was neither 
a coward, a calumniator nor a sneak. All these de- 
lightful qualities must have lovingly united in the 
character of Junius. Fourth, Paine could have had 
no reason for keeping the secret after coming to 
America." 

" I have always believe! that Junius, after having 
written his letters, accept<3d office from the very men 



15 

he had maligned, and at last became a pensioner of 
the victims of his slanders. ' Had he as many mouths 
as Hydra such a course must have closed them all.' 
Certainly the author must have kept the secret to 
prevent the loss of his reputation." 

The reason here given is generally believed to be 
the main reason that Junius never disclosed his se- 
cret; but there were other considerations, doubtless, 
such as those mentioned by Trevelyan, that influ- 
enced his course. 

That Junius was a man of strong prejudice and in- 
veterate hatred there is abundant proof in his Let- 
ters, and it must be admitted that he was often as 
unjust in his comments on men as he ^v as incorrect 
in his representations of public affairs; but Junius 
was no coward, in the common meaning of that word, 
although the loftiest moral courage ho did not pos- 
sess. This was a quality which I must say, in spite 
of slanders and lies, was prominent in Paine, who 
could never be bribed into silence, nor made to do 
any act which his conscience did not approve. 

Nothing more need be said to show that Paine was 
not the author of Junius' Letters, when no evidence 
whatever has been adduced to show that he was; and 
my only excuse for dwelling on this point at such 
length, is the persistent and extraordinary efforts 
which have been made thiough several Freethought 
journals, to establish a theory that rests upon no 
foundation whatever. 

The authorship of Junius's Letters is not a question 
in which I feel much interest at present. Some years 
ago I acquainted myself somewhat with the various 
theories and arguments on the subject, since which 
time I have been satisfied that Junius was Francis; 
but after reading Prof. Denslow's essays, recently 
published in a volume with other essays, entitled 
"Modern Thinkers,'' curiosity to know how far schol- 
ars and thinkers are agreed upon this subject, in- 
duced me to address notes of inquiry to the persons 
from whom letters are given below. Among them 
are men of letters whose literary judgments com- 



16 

mand attention and respect, and their acquaintance 
with the period in which Junius wrote, their famil- 
iarity with the characters, events and writings of that 
time, and with the evidences presented in support of 
the numerous claims that have been made as to the 
authorship of Junius's Letters, give their concurrent 
opinion great weight and value. 

Junius was probably Francis; yet I do not think 
this has been established as an ahsolitte certainty. 
Whoever wrote th6 Letters, they will never cease to 
be admired, and the author will ever be a subject of 
interest to the contemplative mind. " What an un- 
utterable sense of loneliness must sometimes have 
possessed him. There is an austerity in his triumph 
almost painful to think on. He must have thought 
in whispers and muffled his very instincts. He had 
unbounded fame; but ho could not enjoy it, being 
unknown. What transports he knew were surely 
tiger-like; it was the sudden leap and deadly blow 
that composed the sum of his literary pleasures. We 
may figure him wringing in the morning the hand 
that ere nightfall he had resolved should be laid 
against a wounded heart. He glided through his 
brief space of being, a very shadow; wielding mate- 
rial weapons with shadowy hands; making his very 
wit tragical with the spirit of the mystery that 
hedged him about." 




17 
THE LETTERS. 



Hon, Josiah Qidncy. 

I have long thought with Macauley that the letters of Junius 
were written by Sir Philip Francis, and have not seen the papers to 
which you allude in which they are attributed to Thouiaw Paine. 
No liteiary reputation is safe unless an author copyrights his work. 
There are grave doubts whether Shakspeare wrote Hamlet, though 
he has enjoyed the reputation of it for two centuries. 

Josiah Quincy. 



Hon. Robert C, Wmthroj). 

In reply to your question of yesterday, I have no time for saying 
more than that there is no room to doubt that the Declaration of 
Independence was written by Jefferson, and that the general con- 
currence of opinion assigns Junius to Sir Philip Francis. 

Robert C. Winthrop. 



Wendell Phillips. 

I have not seen Denslow's argument, but I have often seen the 
argument for Paine's authorship of Junius stated, and I never 
thought it had any substantial foundation. 

Wendell Phillips. 



George William Curtis. 

I have your note of the 18th. It is not likely that the author- 
ship of Junius will ever be settled beyond cavil. But there is lit- 
tle doubt that the weight of opinion has settled finally upon Sir 
Philip Francis. In Mr. Trevelyan's early life of Charles James 
Fox, just published, it is treated as indisputable that Francis was 
Junius. 

I am not familiar with the Paine claim, but do not think it has 
made much impression, and I am vtry sure that he would have 
been only too glad to prove that he wrote the Letters. 

George William Curtis. 



18 

Col T, W, Higginson, 

I have not given any special attention to the subject of Junius, 
but should not th'nk the theory of Paine's authorship at all tena- 
ble. I believe public opinion on the subject among experts now 
points to Sir Phil'p Francis. You should consult a very elaborate 
work fa quarto by Edward Twistleton on the authorship of JuniuF, 
which can probably be found in the Boston Public Library. 

T. W. Higginson. 



Eev. H. W. Bellotvs. 

I have read several works on the authorship of Junius, and in 
my opinion, there is no longer any reasonable doubt that Sir Philip 
Francis was the aiithor. 

I regard the hypothesis of Thomas Paine being the author as 
preposterous as the opinion that Lord Bacon was the author of 
Shakspearian plays; yet several volumes of much acuteness and 
learning have been written to maintain that proposition. There 
will always be ingenious and eccentric people, who prefer to main- 
tain the most improbable opinions from the love of practicing their 
acumen and of differing with people of common sense. The dis- 
pute about Junius has essentially subsided. It may be a good 
theme for young debaters, but there is no substantial difference of 
opinion among fair mindtd men as to the authorship, and Sir Philip 
Francis is the man. H. W. Bellows. 



Eev. James Freeman Clarke. 

Allibone, in his Diet, of Authors, gives the names of forty-two 
persons who have been seriously believed to have written the letters 
of Junius — but that of Thomas Paine is not among them. He 
may come in as the most likely author of Junius after these forty- 
two have been disposed of. The person who wrote Junius' Letters 
not only possessed an intimate knowledge of Court and ministerial 
secrets (which Paine couM not have had), but the strongest reasons 
for concealing the authorship. Paine had no such reason. He 
pame to America two or tl ree years after the Junius letters ceased, 
gnd hgh^fl every reason then to avow himself their author. 

James Freeman Clarke. 



19 

Oliver Wendell Holmes. 

I never looked up the question, or the an3wcr to it, rather. I 
always supposed Sir Philip Francis was the author. 

O. W. Holmes. 



Hon. E. P. Hurlhurt 

I have yours of the 22nd inst., touching the authorship of Juni- 
us' Letters, and reply in brief that I <-nce carefully investigated 
the subject and became satisfied that Sir Philip Francis was the 
author ; so well satisfied that I have never again looked into the 
matter. On the other hand I have m ver seen anything to raise 
even a suspicion in my mind that Thomas Paine was the author. 

E. P. HURLBURT. 



Hon, S. S. Cox. 

You ask my opinion as to whether Thomas Paine wrote the 
"Letters of Junius." I have no doubt in my own mind that it 
was Sir Philip Francis ; but it was proved some years ago in Massa- 
chusetts, in the North American Eeview, that John Quincy Adams 
wrote Junius, as there were so many analogies of style. Junius is 
still the "shadow of a great name " — Stat ! S. S. Cox. 



Edward Evereii Hale. 

There is not the slightest reason to think the letters of Junius 
were written by Thomas Paine. 

There is every reason to think that they were written by Sir 
Philip Francis. Matters much lesfe Ci^rt lin are accepted with con- 
fidence every day. Edw. E. Hale. 



Theodore D. Woolseij, L. L. D. 

I do not regard my opinion as to the authorship of the Letters 
of Junius to be of any importance, and it is long since I gave my 
attention to the subject. The impressi(.n made on me, so far as I 
examined the evidence was, that Sir Philip Francis was probably 
the author. Theodore D. Woolsey. 



20 

James Parian. 

There is not the smallest reason to doubt that Mr. Jefferson 
wrote the Declaration of Independence. His own word would be 
enough for me. 

I think Francis was Junius. Thomas Paine certainly was not 
Junius. Paine was a brave and true man. Junius was a coward 
and a liar; at best lie was an ill informed sensationalist. He 
attacked persons of whom he knew little. James Parton. 



Prof, Sumner, of Yale College. 

I do not know who Junius was. No one knows. I had settled 
ilown til the opinion that no one ever would know. The evidence 
for Francis is the strongest without being satisfactory. I should 
think that the Paine guess was about the wildest that has been 
made. Paine never would have kept the secret after he left 
England. W. G. Sumner. 



F. H. Underwood. 

In reply to your letter I would say that there is no evidence go- 
ing to show that Paine was Junius, except that he lived in Eng- 
land, and that the clear, bold style of Junius was greatly like that 
of i\Q. acknowledged works of Paine * * The British 

public generally believe Sir Philip Francis wrote the Junius Let- 
ters. It will probably never be known with any certainty. * * 

FjiANCis H. Underwood. 



Charles Bradlaugh, 

I hardly feel that I have the right to express a critical opinion 
on the question you ask me. So far as I have examined the mat- 
ter I do not think that there is any reliable evidence in favor of 
the contention that Thomas Paine was the author of the Letters 
of Jnnius. C. Bradlaugh. 



21 

HotL George W, Julian, 

I have yours of the 19th asking my opinion respecting the au- 
thorship of the letters of Jiinina, and the claim recently put for- 
ward that they were written by Thomas Paine. I am very sorry 
to say that I have not given these matters such particular atten- 
tion as to make my opinion of any critical value. My impression 
is that Paine did not write the letters of Junius. They are more 
finished and studied than the more original and ofF-hand writings 
of Paine. I should consider the generally accepted opinion re- 
specting the authorship of these letters as more probably correct 
than any other, though I should be very glad to be convinced that 
Paine did write them. You have no doubt investigated the matter 
and your judgment would have great weight with me. 

Geo. W. Julian. 



Rev, John W. Chadioick, 

My lecture on Paine was in the Index, but the date I can not re- 
member. * * I certainly did not vent the idea that Paine 
wrote ihe Declaration or that Jefferson did not. Paine's "Common 
Sense" was glory enough for him. As to Paine's having written 
the letters of Junius, I do not believe that there is " the sifted sedi- 
ment of a residium " of a reason for supposing that he did so. 
Fancy his Exciseman's Letter and Junius from the same hand ! 
Then, too, with all his virtues, Paine's vanity was enormous and 
he could never have kept the secret of his authorship to himself 
if there had been any reason for his doing so. 

John W. Chadwick. 



Mrs. Margaret ChappellsmUh. 

Five years ago I told Mr. that I did not believe Paine to 

be the author of the " Letters of Junius," and that my esteem for 
Paine would not be increased by believing that he was the writer 
of those " Letters." 

Excepting as a vigorous and refined writer, I have not had any 
respect for the author of the '* Letters." I have thought that he 
was a member of a party out of office, which, if in oftice, would 
have acted as viciously as the party that Junins condemned. I 
have not cared to know who Junius was, but I have read much of 
argument and apparent evidence, some of it gathered, I think. 



22 

from the recent examination of the MSS. of •* the Letters " by an 
expert, in connection with an examination of letters signed by 
Francis, which ajjpear to make it higlily probable that Junius was 
Francis. His education and position in life, his official position 
in the midst of gossip about quondom and existing high officials, 
and about intriguing aspirants for office were more calculated to 
induce such criticisms as tho^e in the " Letters," and were more 
likely to create the style and the seeming animosity to men more 
than to measures, such as many politicians exhibit, which I think 
is manifested in these letters, than were the conditions of Paine, his 
education, connections and pursuits up to the year 1769. 

Paine's known style does not, I think, resemble that of the " Let- 
ters;" and I have not had, in reading his works, any thought of his 
having any spite against men whose office he wished to occupy, or 
that he wanted to force from those he condemned a bribe to be 
silent. * ^- "Junius Unmasked" and Mr. Burr's 

circumstantial evidence and his arguments do not strengthen the 
probability that Junius was Paine. ■■■ *" 

Margaret C'HAPrELLSMiTH. 



Hon. Steplien J. W. Tahor. 

I do not think the Letters of Junius were written by Thomas 
Paine, nor do I think he wrote or "drafted " the Declaration of In- 
dependonce. He was intellectually equal to the composition of 
either, and his '•' Common Sense " furnished many ideas and argu- 
ments to Jefferson, as it did to other Revolutionary orators and 
authors. The secret of Junius, it seems to me, was compelled by 
his connection and contact, during his whole life, with the very 
people whom he had castigated and denounced in his Letters. I 
see no sufficient reason why Paine should have wished to preserve 
the secret after he came to this country, if he were the author, ror 
was he unwilling to acknowledge what he wrote, nor was he desti- 
t ite of that pride in his jvroduction which he well might entertain. 
To me the probabilities point more to Sir Philip Francis as the nu- 
thor of Junius than to any one else who has been named. 

Stephen J. W. Tabor 



23 

Prof. Francis Bowen, 

Sir Philip Francis is unquestionably the author of Junius. This 
has been demonstrated recently by Twistleton's book containing a 
professional examination of the liand writing of the two, and by 
the biography of Francis written by Parkes and Merivale. On the 
evidence wliich is now producible, any jury ^^ould convict Sir Phil- 
ip without leaving the court, if being Junius were a capital ofience. 
Of course, then, Paine did not write these famous Letters. He had 
neither the knowledge nor the ability for writing them. Any good 
critic of style would say that Paine's style, although good, is totally 
unlike that of Junius. Francis Bowen. 



President Julius Scelye, of Amherst College. 

President Seelye desires me to acknowledge his receipt of yours 
of yesterday, and to s;iy that he supposes there is now no doubt 
among well informed circles that the author of the Junius' letters 
was Sir. Phflip Francis. This fact, probable before, seems to have 
been rendered indubitable by the late researches of Messrs. Chabot 
and Twistleton. C. E. R., Sec'y. 



Hon, Charles Francis Adams. 

When I was a young man nobody was a greater man in my 
mind than the writer of the letters of Junius. I read them and 
tried, to some extent, to copy them, they weie so pungent. Forty 
years have passed away and I look at the letters of Junius as upon 
the most skillful person to let off a sky-rocket and vanish in the 
smoke. The great difficulty of the writer was that he was eagerly 
sprawling to produce effects without the least regard to their quali- 
ty. Nobody can last on so slimy a foundation. 

Charles Francis Adams. 



24 

Justin McCarthy, 

I do not think iny opinion of the Junius controversy has any 
particular value. Howe-^er, as you are kind enough to ask for it, I 
can only say that so far as I have been able to form a judgmf nt^ 
Sir Philip Francis was the author of the letters; and I think that 
is the general conviction among literary men, and is likely to re- 
main unshaken. Certawly I have never read anything which had 
the effect of shaking my conviction. I know, however, that there 
are some, not perhaps many, men who do not accept the evidence of 
the authorship as conclusive with regard to Francis. Sir Charles 
Dilke, for example does not. I happened to have some canversa- 
tion with him on the subject a few weeks ago. 

Justin McCarthy, 





LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



■ 



020 661 512 6 I 



